Announcement

**Firelad** · June 10, 2003, 19:07

Seems to me that the thing relevant to refugee status should be the fact that the person in question cannot live in his country of origin due to persecution. The rest is relevant, but not primary.

**Ben Kenobi** · June 10, 2003, 19:08

Do you have a basic human right to practice heterosexuality?

To sleep with the woman of my choosing?
No, of course not. There is no such right in Canada. We will not be punished for doing so, but there is no 'right' under the law for me to do so.

Bestiality and homosexuality can't even be compared.

Why not? Both are sinful for Christians. What's the difference between the two? Why should we offer refugee status for one and not the other? People who sleep with sheep may be stoned in an Islamic country. Why don't we offer them asylum in Canada?

Edit: censor

**Boris Godunov** · June 10, 2003, 19:09

Originally posted by obiwan18
What do you mean by 'rights' Boris? As enshrined in the constitution? Even in Canada, there is no such right.

Anything not prohibited by the law is your right. They need not necessarily be "enshrined" by any constitution. The U.S. has a right (supposedly) to free association, which works for me.

Does a religious asylum seeker have to prove his faith? Can't I just claim to be of an oppressed religion to enter a country and seek asylum?

Considering how abhorrent most Muslims are towards homosexuality, I don't think many would fake it to get somewhere else.

**Giancarlo** · June 10, 2003, 19:11

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why not? Both are sinful for Christians. What's the difference between the two?

I am existentialist. So talk strictly secular terms. The difference is that homosexual sex is with two consenting adults and bestiality is not. I find bestiality morally repugnant. However I am gay, and what I do with my boyfriend is not your business and is not wrong. Live and let live. Let me live my life before shoving this "it is sinful" crap down my throat.

You are comparing two unlikes.

**Asher** · June 10, 2003, 19:12

Originally posted by obiwan18
To sleep with the woman of my choosing?
No, of course not. There is no such right in Canada. We will not be punished for doing so, but there is no 'right' under the law for me to do so.

You're getting all confuzzled.

If there was a right under law which guaranteed the basic human right of sexuality, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Some people believe that we should have freedom of sexuality as well as freedom of religion...

**Boris Godunov** · June 10, 2003, 19:15

Originally posted by obiwan18
To sleep with the woman of my choosing?
No, of course not. There is no such right in Canada. We will not be punished for doing so, but there is no 'right' under the law for me to do so.

If it ain't illegal, it's your right.

Why not? Both are sinful for Christians.

So? Since when was Canada a theocracy based on Christian faith? Many Christians do not find homosexuality sinful, too. So their opinion doesn't count?

Why should your particular religious opinion matter in secular law?

What's the difference between the two?

One involves consenting adults. The other involves non-consenting animals. Not hard to grasp.

Now, there are plenty of other analogies you could have used to make this point, but citing bestiality, considering the typical religious hatemonger towards gays, is really a poor choice on your part, unless your intent was to troll.

Why should we offer refugee status for one and not the other? People who **** sheep may be stoned in an Islamic country. Why don't we offer them asylum in Canada?

Is bestiality legal in Canada? If not, then I suppose you shouldn't offer the status.

**Giancarlo** · June 10, 2003, 19:18

Boris:

Thanks for that response... I wonder obiwan is saying now? I bet he is going to start reciting bible verses..

**Asher** · June 10, 2003, 19:18

IIRC obiwan is a menonite?

**Ben Kenobi** · June 10, 2003, 19:22

Boris:

Anything not prohibited by the law is your right.

Nope. Rights must be enshrined in the constitution in order to be considered a right. Legally, you would be laughed here in Canada if you told them what you just told me.

Does a religious asylum seeker have to prove his faith? Can't I just claim to be of an oppressed religion to enter a country and seek asylum?

I'm going to answer Asher's question as well here.
about the religion, and what the religion teaches.

Let's see if I can find a recent case here in Canada.

Page not found – HRWF

http://www.hrwf.net/newhrwf/html/canada2002.html

Canadian Embassy refuses immigration status

By Barbara Baker

Compass Direct (02.05.2002)/ HRWF (03.05.2002) Email info@hrwf.net - Website http://www.hrwf.net - The Canadian Embassy in Ankara turned down an Iranian Christian family's immigration application last week, closing the last known option for religious asylum for former Muslims Mahmoud and Atefeh Erfani and their three daughters.

Just five days later, the Canadian Embassy issued a letter declaring that based on "a careful consideration" of his April 18 interview, Erfani did "not satisfy the definition of Convention refugee nor member of the country of asylum class."

According to definitions cited in the refusal letter, a "Convention refugee" is any person who "by reason of well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion" has left his country and "by reason of that fear, is unwilling to return to that country."

Known as a center of Shiite fanaticism, Mashhad authorities executed a convert Christian pastor for apostasy in 1990. Then the city's two Protestant churches were forced to close, and three convert Christian couples were arrested, threatened, and formally charged with apostasy. All three families managed to escape from Iran and obtain religious asylum in Europe and North America.

Although Erfani himself was subjected to a series of terrifying abductions by local secret police during the last half of 1998, he had no documents to "prove" officially that he was being persecuted for his faith by the Iranian government. After his family was forcibly evicted from their home on the former Presbyterian church compound in March 1999, he moved them to Tehran.

**Asher** · June 10, 2003, 19:27

Originally posted by obiwan18
Nope. Rights must be enshrined in the constitution in order to be considered a right. Legally, you would be laughed here in Canada if you told them what you just told me.

The problem is semantics.
I'm talking Human Rights in general, Boris is talking "not illegal", and you're talking "enshrined in constitution".

I'm going to answer Asher's question as well here.
about the religion, and what the religion teaches.

Let's see if I can find a recent case here in Canada.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything -- all it does is prove that stuff like religion, political affiliation, etc. can be grounds for refugee status -- much like sexuality.

Refugee status is often declined because of lack of substantial proof, but what does that say at all aside from it's hard to prove things?

**Ben Kenobi** · June 10, 2003, 19:30

Is bestiality legal in Canada? If not, then I suppose you shouldn't offer the status.

for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion

Bestiality falls outside of this definition.
So does homosexuality.

is really a poor choice on your part, unless your intent was to troll.

Fez, et al:

Where have I quoted scripture to prove my point?
Yes, I used an analogy, I just want to get to the heart of the question. These are the precise questions Christians are going to be asking amongst themselves.

**Asher** · June 10, 2003, 19:32

Originally posted by obiwan18
Bestiality falls outside of this definition.
So does homosexuality.

I'm continually amazed that you try this angle.

No one is arguing that the framework exists now that gives homosexuals equal rights and protections as other minorities, we're saying it should.

So coming back and saying "Homosexuality falls outside this defintition!" or "there are no laws in Canada guaranteeing that!" is somewhat silly, no?

**Ben Kenobi** · June 10, 2003, 19:35

Asher:

The problem is semantics.
I'm talking Human Rights in general, Boris is talking "not illegal", and you're talking "enshrined in constitution".

Legally, that is what a 'right' is, although common use will model Boris.

Should there be a right of human sexuality as there is for religion? That's a big question and needs to be answered before we start tinkering with our refugee system. Section 15 is not enough to do so, since sexual orientation is poorly defined and does not equate with sexual practice.

**Asher** · June 10, 2003, 19:36

Should there be a right of human sexuality as there is for religion?

To a sane person that should be a rhetorical question.

**Giancarlo** · June 10, 2003, 19:37

Originally posted by obiwan18
Fez, et al:

Where have I quoted scripture to prove my point?

Looking at your posts it would be expected.

Yes, I used an analogy, I just want to get to the heart of the question. These are the precise questions Christians are going to be asking amongst themselves.

Bestiality and homosexuality are not even similar in any way.

Christians this, Christians that.. let me live my life.

Announcement

Palestinian Gays & Israel

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment